Fieldcraft policy update - Dec 2018


Level 1 is Lessons 1-19 (No Ammo or Pyro)
Level 2 is Lessons 1 -22 (Blank/Pyro Allowed)

Level 1 can be delivered by any RAFAC FCI
Level 2 can be delivered by a RAFAC FCI who also holds SA(M)07


Great makes sense, I assume all SA(M) 07 are currently delivered by Frimley? Or has RAFAC gone in-house at all?


The Central Training Team / Skill At Arms Team deliver 2 maybe 3 SA(M)07 Courses, they’ve now been dissolved so our only current access is via Frimley Park, and i don’t expect this to change as we’re still waiting for SATTs to start delivering SAAI courses.


Many thanks for all the info


This is on the cards. SAAI courses are slow starting for particular reasons. A SATT could deliver an M Qual next week if it has enough qualified instructors. I believe North SATT are running a trial at some point in the summer.


Had a chat with a WExO today and they were genuinely surprised that the ACF has no fieldcraft qualification!, they explained the 3 levels? Of fieldcraft qualms the ACO have/will have, when I explained that anyone with the knowledge could teach all the 19 or 21 lessons (forgot what is) they looked surprised when said ECO/ M Qual is only required for blank firing phase and is only “fieldcraft qual” ACF have…interesting


On your week adult induction course you have to do 2 fieldcraft lessons that are assessed by a member of the training team as well as training by them over a 24 hour field exercise with blank and pyro, at the end of the week you are qualified as an exercise assistant.

So as part of your BIC,IIC and AIC you are trained to deliver Fieldcraft training. You are trained and assessed to deliver up to 2 star fieldcraft (i cant remember which lessons). So not completely true, they just deliver it as part of your induction training.


Yup but it’s not a qualification in its own right, I’m an ACF CFAV, 15 years worth of teaching the stuff, from basic to master cadet…bic, iic confirm you have the knowledge by getting your books signed off, then AIC assesses your ability to teach, yes you teach a FC lesson on AIC, but the course is more about ability to teach across all subjects and is not FC specific…even a 15 year old cadet (having done JCIC) can deliver FC lessons…so no qualification is needed or us issued specific to fieldcraft, just ability to teach and knowledge


It’s their bread and butter and they will be exposed to it on a regular basis making it easy for them to gain knowledge and deliver content.

The RAFAC approach was initially designed to add in some standards checking and background knowledge prior to instructors delivering stuff they may not be familiar with.


Hi Bob, yes I know that as I’ve said I am an ACF instructor, what I’m saying is why is a WExO supprised that there is no qualification in the ACF, if you can see it’s “their bread and butter” why do they not see that? Why expect a qualification? I get why ACO have a level of FC instructor…to reiterate I AM AN ACF instructor


The WExO will no doubt have his RAF AC head on where there are qualifications.

From a SST point of view he is probably thinking about the whole Qualified, current, competent piece, this has gained a lot of interest under the new regional commandants and TSAs reign. If there is no formal fieldcraft qual the they must just reference the instructor qual.


The WEXO probably hasn’t got a clue as they are a civil servant, and have a Volunteer SME and full time TSA to talk to if they need to understand


I am sorry but because it’s your “bread and butter” is not a good enough reason to not have a formal qualification.

Whilst I appreciate the ACF do fieldcraft more and also it’s part of their staff training it still doesn’t give them the right to practice without holding a formal qualification of sorts.

I was under the impression that all The SAAI courses etc were brought out from the small arms school so surely they would of been standardised training and qualifications?

You would of thought given the tragic incident off the coast of Scotland where an ACF cadet tragically lost their life and one of the points raised was people doing activities with out formal qualifications it should be systematic to get people holding recognised formal qualifications.


Why would you need a formal qual to teach basic fieldcraft?

I teach comms, airmanship, principles of flight, leadership, military aircraft systems and a dozen other subjects without a formal qualification in any of them.

To lead armed SAA lessons, etc and to run an exercise I can see the justification for a qualification but just to deliver a lesson it may as well be like any other subject.


Just to be awkward?
Satisfy the ever twitching sphincters?
Justify jobs in the non voluntary side of the air cadets?


there is a difference between delivering a lesson and conducting a exercise.

it shouldn’t be unreasonable to expect CFAVs to deliver a lesson - it is our middle name after all ("Air Training Corps - that is the “bread and butter” for any CFAV

but it is different to be leading a larger training experience as an exercise and why a qualification becomes more justified, particularly when camping out/an overnight is involved.

using that justification the RAF can have pilots flying without any form of qualification or currency.

this is just another example where there is a different approach to the same activity between the RAFAC and ACF
yes i appreciate there are the same/similar difference in the world of the RAF and Army but that is a different environment, with paid professionals working as a career.


Ive just dug out my course report from back in the day where it sets out the aim of the Advanced Induction Course.

It says: Assess a probationary instructor’s ability to instruct cadets in the APC Syllabus up to one-star level (Less Skill at Arms and First Aid)

Part of the overhall in 2013/2014 regarding staff training in the ACF was to formalise the training probationary instructors were given.

This means that following your training you are qualified to teach basic fieldcraft up to 1 star under the Safe Systems of Training banner (as well as any subject in the APC syllabus).

It really should not be confused with the ACO training we get. The only people in the ACF who are qualified to do an “deployed” exercise with or without weapons is someone who holds the SA(M)07 qualification.

So your average SI within the ACF can train cadets within there detachments at a low level, but are unable to then take them out on an exercise (even without weapons) without someone with the SA(M)07 being present running the show.


We do have a formal qualification, it is called the AIC. While not a purely fieldcraft course, it does involve delivering a fieldcraft lesson. Why would we need anything else? Fieldcraft is the ACF’s main subject. Even cadet instructors have to deliver a fieldcraft lesson as part of their JCIC.

That isn’t strictly true. Non-ECO ACF staff could take cadets out on exercise and would really only need someone with SA(M)07 if blanks or pyro are being used, but this is something that no one would ever bother to do as the effort of pushing it through is far greater than that of finding an ECO and using blank! In fact it would probably get rejected as being stupid. :slight_smile:


I know of several instances over the years pre NGB requirement for camping & walking where incidents have required quite public levels of extraction attracting reports in papers and nothing happened, except for a slapped wrist and stories in the pub. Roll forward to the single incident in FC and the world of FC came tumbling in.

What we have is the ATC command’s penchant for OTT on everything, when it isn’t really required. It would seem here we need comprehensive notes for squadron delivery and practice (like for all squadron instruction) and something extra for those who want to do more. I appreciate a belts and braces approach, drives my missus and kids mad at times, but you don’t need two belts.


SAAI and M Qual are both SASC courses ran to their standards from their course folder by instructors approved by them.

Fieldcraft is not covered under either of those.